Before The KJV

[Surfer5]

99 times out of 100 the immediate context clearly shows that the "quote" is presented as trying to make it look like W/H said the exact opposite of what they believed.

If I thought that, I would be skeptical also. I will look forward to being proved wrong, if you are right.

 

[Surfer5]

why do you keep asking if I'm saying something?

Because its better for me to be courteous and try to understand what you mean, and to find out from you, than it is for me to simply presume that I already know or understand.

 

[Surfer5]

I don't mean to be blunt, but I find that a little hard to believe. If you had, you would know that they were doctrinally sound (as much as any Anglican, at least), repeatedly affirmed the deity of Christ,

1. Maybe you should give others a bit - of the benefit of the doubt.

2. The fact that someone disagrees with you about Westcott & Hort does not mean that they have not read the works of Westcott & Hort, and it certainly does not prove that.

3. Another possibility is that someone read Westcott & Hort, and came to a different conclusion than you did.

4. I have read Westcott & Hort, and I am among those who do not believe that they had an Orthodox Anglican position.

 

[Surfer5]

RE: W & H + translation process

I am curious to know if you have done any research into the methods used by Westcott & Hort in the process of translation, that resulted in the Revised Version of 1881.

Have you found out if the committees involved played a part in the selection or the collation of the manuscripts ?

Or was it only that the Translation committee translated the Texts in Greek that Westcott & Hort gave to them ?

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Surfer5:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> I don't mean to be blunt, but I find that a little hard to believe. If you had, you would know that they were doctrinally sound (as much as any Anglican, at least), repeatedly affirmed the deity of Christ,

1. Maybe you should give others a bit - of the benefit of the doubt.
</font>[/QUOTE]I simply cannot understand how someone who has actually read any of their books can say they reject the deity of Christ. Perhaps you can explain that.

2. The fact that someone disagrees with you about Westcott & Hort does not mean that they have not read the works of Westcott & Hort, and it certainly does not prove that.

I agree, I never said it did.

3. Another possibility is that someone read Westcott & Hort, and came to a different conclusion than you did.

Please explain what you have read of W/H that made you come to the conclusion that they reject the deity of Christ. I will post what I have read that made me come to the conclusion that they affirm the deity of Christ. Then we can compare notes.

4. I have read Westcott & Hort, and I am among those who do not believe that they had an Orthodox Anglican position.

And still no explanations.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Surfer5:
I am curious to know if you have done any research into the methods used by Westcott & Hort in the process of translation, that resulted in the Revised Version of 1881.

Some. I am part-way reading through both "Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek" by W/H which describe their processes, as well as "The Revision Revised" by Burgon which argues against those processes.

Have you found out if the committees involved played a part in the selection or the collation of the manuscripts ?

No, not yet. Do you have any specific info to share?

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by DCK:

According to KJVO thinking, only versions done from the TR are considered "pure." So, the number seven would work, as long as lesser-known versions/revisions such as those of George Joye or the Taverner's Bible are ignored.

Well, notwithstanding the misinterpretation of the verse that started this whole discussion.....

To ignore the Wiclif translation is sheer lunacy, particularly when given the fact that it was the FIRST translation into English. Remember: that is the whole premise of the KJVO argument posted in the statements to which we are responding. Anyone who denies that Wiclif was guided by God needs a real spiritual gut check. Wiclif took a stand for God, and it cost him everything. In fact, they even exhumed his body and burned his bones.

Following this logic, I wonder: is the Apocrypha in the TR?? For the sake of their argument, I sure hope it is.

Remember: I have already proven that love the KJV more than any of the KJVO's on this list. I simply do not subscribe to KJV-Onlyism.

 

[Surfer5]

According to KJVO thinking, only versions done from the TR are considered "pure." So, the number seven would work,

I am not sure to what you are referring. KJVO thinking would suggest that the TR sources are 1) more accurate than the sources used for modern versions and 2) that modern versions are specifically innacurate and rely on inferior texts.

You can use the # 7 if you wish. That is a fine number, but you could use 20 or 200 also. Some KJVOs will find more significance to the number 7 than others will. If all NIV advocates are not the same, all KJVO are not the same (though we often are on the same side and use the same versions...perspectives may be similar but not identical).

 

[Surfer5]

To ignore the Wiclif translation is sheer lunacy, particularly when given the fact that it was the FIRST translation into English.

I think you are:

1. reading into the posts of others your own meaning, or
2. supposing that what some KJVO say is applicable to all.

Wycliffe was a good fellow. But any translation that relies on inferior texts such as the vulgate of Jerome, will have problems. That in fact, is the crux of the arguement by KJVO against the Modern Versions, that the Modern Versions use
the same bad Greek Texts that Jerome based his work on (which would be Codex Vaticanus & Sinaiticus family of texts).

If a version happens to have a few verses from the Vulgate and the meaning is not affected, so much the better. Even SOME of what the VULGATE contains, is bound to be accurate. But to rely on the Vulgate as a primary source is where the mistake would be.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Originally posted by Surfer5:

I think you are:

1. reading into the posts of others your own meaning, or
2. supposing that what some KJVO say is applicable to all.

1. The statement was that many KJVO's ignore the Wiclif Translation because it was not based upon the TR. That was the first English Translation, and that was the point being made by the person who misinterprets the Verse quoted. Tell me: how should I "read" this?
2. I never said this. As a matter of fact, I never even implied this.

Wycliffe was a good fellow.

A "good fellow?"
He did more for God that triple our cumulative efforts.

 

[Surfer5]

I'll have to go back and check the thread. I may have jumped the gun...

 

[Surfer5]

1. The statement was that many KJVO's ignore the Wiclif Translation because it was not based upon the TR. That was the first English Translation, and that was the point being made by the person who misinterprets the Verse quoted.

I suppose it has to do with the correlation of some of the KJVOs who contend something about the word of God being purified 7 times, and then attempt to apply this to specific English Versions.

The issue of Wycliff - for them - then gets into the implications of whether or not Wycliffe should be included among the 7 versions.

Some will suggest it should be, others will suggest that Wycliffe should not count, or his first pre-death version should not count.
---

I have also seen the "purified 7 times" concept applied to languages. First it was Hebrew, then Greek, then Latin, then ... until English is # 7 because it is the universal language spoken today.

While I have no objection to the purification process, how to apply the purification process
seems to me to be more a matter of conjecture, than of absolute proven fact.

While I agree with some of the conclusions, there may be other ways at arriving at those conclusions, without the use of the "purified 7 times" concept.

 

[Baptist in Richmond]

Welcome to the party, Surfer5.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

Originally posted by Baptist in Richmond:
Welcome to the party, Surfer5.

n i'm watching this thread to see how long he'll duck BrianT's specific questions on W-H.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Dear Brother HankD:

[kibitz] To avoid future problems,
be sure to use the UBB Code:
"[humor]" to introduce your humor.
Also be sure to undo
with "[/humor]" [/kibitz]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Greetings in the Lord pollyanna Surfer 5.

I/ve been dealing with KJVOs 37 of my 60 years
(of life, 8 oif 19 years on the internet

).

These are the two sides in the virsion debates:

1. those who say they believe in the KJV1611AV
only but really use the KJV1769 instead.

2. Those who allow that all correctly
translated English versions are individually
the Holy Bible God has preserved for this age.

Need i say I'm in group #2?

 

[Surfer5]

Greetings Sir Edward,

I would tend to place myself in the following Group:

2. Those who allow that all correctly
translated English versions are individually
the Holy Bible God has preserved for this age.

-------
As to the KJV, I believe in the 66 Canonized books of the KJV1611AV. I use a 1635 KJV much of the time.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Surfer5:
Greetings Sir Edward,

I would tend to place myself in the following Group:

2. Those who allow that all correctly
translated English versions are individually
the Holy Bible God has preserved for this age.

-------
As to the KJV, I believe in the 66 Canonized books of the KJV1611AV. I use a 1635 KJV much of the time.

Does that KJV1635
have Gothic letters or Roman letters?

 

[LarryN]

From Surfer5 on September 3rd @ 6:42 p.m.:

Wycliffe was a good fellow. But any translation that relies on inferior texts such as the vulgate of Jerome, will have problems. That in fact, is the crux of the arguement by KJVO against the Modern Versions, that the Modern Versions use
the same bad Greek Texts that Jerome based his work on (which would be Codex Vaticanus & Sinaiticus family of texts).

If a version happens to have a few verses from the Vulgate and the meaning is not affected, so much the better. Even SOME of what the VULGATE contains, is bound to be accurate. But to rely on the Vulgate as a primary source is where the mistake would be.

What Surfer5 doesn't mention in this statement is a fact that is well known among even the most extreme KJVO's- that the last six verses of the book of Revelation were back-translated from the Latin Vulgate into the greek, due to the fact that the single manuscript Erasmus was working with which contained Revelation was missing the final six verses. As a result, the TR ended up with the reading of chapter 22, verse 19 that made its way into the KJV- a translation that even Jack Hyles at one time readily admitted was in error. (see his 1968 book "Let's Study the Revelation".) Of course, after his conversion to KJVO-ism in the early 80's Hyles would have never admitted such a thing.

Notice Surfer5's concession that a few verses from the Vulgate are alright; a means KJVO-ers use to reconcile the use of the Vulgate in the compilation of the TR, and its subsequent influence in the text of Revelation chapter 22 in the KJV.

 

[LarryN]

In my previous post, the verse referred to should be Rev. 22:14, not 22:19. My error.